Miguel V People

9/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 833

G.R. No. 227038. July 31, 2017.*

JEFFREY MIGUEL y REMEGIO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; In criminal cases, an

appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing
tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or
even reverse the trial court’s decision based on grounds other than those
that the parties raised as errors.—In criminal cases, “an appeal throws the
entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct
errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial
court’s decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as
errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case
and
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.

441
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 441

Miguel vs. People
renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment

appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the
penal law.”
Bantay Bayan; Civilian Volunteers; Searches and Seizures; Arrests; In
the case of Dela Cruz v. People, 779 SCRA 34 (2016), involving civilian
port personnel conducting security checks, the Supreme Court (SC)
thoroughly discussed that while the Bill of Rights under Article III of the
1987 Constitution generally cannot be invoked against the acts of private
individuals, the same may nevertheless be applicable if such individuals act
under the color of a state-related function.—One of the arguments presented
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf1d588054c7c381a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/19
in the instant petition is that the search and arrest made on petitioner were
illegal and, thus, the marijuana purportedly seized from him is inadmissible
in evidence. In this relation, it is worth noting that his arresting officers, i.e.,
BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, are mere Bantay Bayan operatives of Makati
City. Strictly speaking, they are not government agents like the Philippine
National Police (PNP) or the National Bureau of Investigation in charge of
law enforcement; but rather, they are civilian volunteers who act as “force
multipliers” to assist the aforesaid law enforcement agencies in maintaining
peace and security within their designated areas. Particularly, jurisprudence
described the nature of Bantay Bayan as “a group of male residents living in
[the] area organized for the purpose of keeping peace in their community[,
which is] an accredited auxiliary of the x x x PNP.” In the case of Dela Cruz
v. People, 779 SCRA 34 (2016), involving civilian port personnel
conducting security checks, the Court thoroughly discussed that while the
Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution generally cannot be
invoked against the acts of private individuals, the same may nevertheless
be applicable if such individuals act under the color of a state-related
function.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) is convinced that
the acts of the Bantay Bayan — or any barangay-based or other volunteer
organizations in the nature of watch groups — relating to the preservation
of peace and order in their respective areas have the color of a state-related
function. As such, they should be deemed as law enforcement authorities for
the purpose of applying the Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987
Constitution to them.—The Court is convinced that the acts of the Bantay
Bayan — or any barangay-based or other volunteer organizations in the
nature of watch groups

442
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Miguel vs. People
— relating to the preservation of peace and order in their respective

areas have the color of a state-related function. As such, they should be
deemed as law enforcement authorities for the purpose of applying the Bill
of Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution to them.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrantless Searches and
Seizures; Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest; One of the recognized
exceptions to the need [of] a warrant before a search may be [e]ffected is a
search incidental to a lawful arrest.—Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out
through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the
existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and seizure
becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of said constitutional

provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures,
Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence
obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible
in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence
obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and
seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial
fruit of a poisonous tree. One of the recognized exceptions to the need [of] a
warrant before a search may be [e]ffected is a search incidental to a lawful
arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest
before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed.
Same; Same; Warrantless Arrests; Three (3) instances when
warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected: (a) an arrest of a suspect in
flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal
knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect
was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; and (c) an
arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or
temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.—The aforementioned
provision identifies three (3) instances when warrantless arrests may be
lawfully effected. These are: (a) an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto;
(b) an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the
arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator
of a crime which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner
who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily

443
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 443

Miguel vs. People
confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
Same; Same; Same; In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section
5(a), Rule 113, two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt
act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.—In
warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule 113, two (2)
elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence
or within the view of the arresting officer. On the other hand, Section 5(b),
Rule 113 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense
had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. In both
instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission
of an offense is essential. Under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the officer himself witnesses the crime; while
in Section 5(b) of the same, he knows for a fact that a crime has just been
committed.
Same; Same; Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest; There must first be
a lawful arrest before a search can be made and that such process cannot be
reversed.—The Court simply finds highly implausible the prosecution’s
claim that a valid warrantless arrest was made on petitioner on account of
the alleged public display of his private parts because if it was indeed the
case, then the proper charge should have been filed against him. However,
records are bereft of any showing that such charge was filed aside from the
instant criminal charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs — thereby
strengthening the view that no prior arrest was made on petitioner which led
to a search incidental thereto. As stressed earlier, there must first be a lawful
arrest before a search can be made and that such process cannot be reversed.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

444

Miguel vs. People
Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondent.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the
Decision2 dated October 21, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated
September 5, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR
No. 35318, which affirmed the Decision4 dated October 1, 2012 of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64 (RTC) in
Criminal Case No. 10-912 convicting petitioner Jeffrey Miguel y
Remegio (petitioner) of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs.

The F acts

On May 27, 2010, an Information5 was filed before the RTC

charging petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined
and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No.
9165,6 otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002,” the accusatory portion of which reads:
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 13-36.

2 Id., at pp. 40-53. Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with
Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Mario V. Lopez, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 55-56.
4 Id., at pp. 71-73. Penned by Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos.
5 Dated May 26, 2010. Records, pp. 1-2.
6 Entitled “AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES” approved on June 7, 2002.

445
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 445

Miguel vs. People
On the 24th day of May 2010, in the city of Makati, the Philippines,
accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug and
without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control, and
custody a total of one point ten (1.10) grams of dried Marijuana leaves, a
dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7

The prosecution alleged that at around 12:45 in the morning of
May 24, 2010, a Bantay Bayan operative of Barangay San Antonio
Village, Makati City named Reynaldo Bahoyo (BB Bahoyo) was
doing his rounds when he purportedly received a report of a man
showing off his private parts at Kaong Street. BB Bahoyo and fellow
Bantay Bayan operative Mark Anthony Velasquez (BB Velasquez)
then went to the said street and saw a visibly intoxicated person,
which they later identified as herein petitioner, urinating and
displaying his private parts while standing in front of a gate
enclosing an empty lot. BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez approached
petitioner and asked him where he lived, and the latter answered
Kaong Street. BB Bahoyo then said that he also lived in the same
street but petitioner looked unfamiliar to him, so he asked for an
identification card, but petitioner failed to produce one. BB

Velasquez then repeated the request for an identification card, but
instead, petitioner emptied his pockets, revealing a pack of cigarettes
containing one (1) stick of cigarette and two (2) pieces of rolled
paper containing dried marijuana leaves, among others. This
prompted BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez to seize the foregoing
items, take petitioner to the police station, and turn him in, as well as
the seized items, over to SPO3 Rafael Castillo (SPO3 Castillo).
SPO3 Castillo then inventoried, marked, and photographed the
seized items, all in the presence of BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez,
and thereafter, prepared an inventory report and
_______________
7 Records, pp. 1-2.

446

Miguel vs. People
a request for qualitative examination of the seized two (2) pieces of

rolled paper and for petitioner to undergo drug testing. After
examination, it was confirmed that the aforesaid rolled paper
contained marijuana and that petitioner was positive for the presence
of methamphetamine but negative for THC-metabolites, both
dangerous drugs.8
Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge, and thereafter,
presented a different version of the facts. According to him, he was
just urinating in front of his workplace when two (2) Bantay Bayan
operatives, i.e., BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, approached and
asked him where he lived. Upon responding that he lived in Kaong
Street, BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez then frisked him, took away
his belongings, and thereafter, handcuffed and brought him to the
barangay hall. He was then detained for about an hour before being
taken to the Ospital ng Makati and to another office where a bald
police officer questioned him. Thereafter, he was taken back to the
barangay hall where they showed him two (2) sticks of marijuana
joints allegedly recovered from him.9

The RTC’s Ruling

In a Decision10 dated October 1, 2012, the RTC found petitioner
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and,
accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for
an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as

minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum,
and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.11
_______________
8 See Rollo, pp. 42-44.

9 Id., at pp. 44-45.
10 Id., at p. 71-73.
11 Id., at p. 73.

447
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 447

Miguel vs. People
The RTC found that BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez conducted a

valid warrantless arrest, as petitioner was scandalously showing his
private parts at the time of his arrest. Therefore, the resultant search
incidental to such arrest which yielded the seized marijuana in
petitioner’s possession was also lawful. In this regard, since the
prosecution has adequately shown that petitioner freely and
consciously possessed such marijuana without authority by law, then
he must be convicted for violating Section 11, Article II of RA
9165.12
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed13 to the CA.

The CA’s Ruling

In a Decision14 dated October 21, 2015, the CA affirmed
petitioner’s conviction.15 It held that the search made on petitioner
which yielded the seized marijuana was validly made as it was done
incidental to his arrest for exhibiting his private parts on public. As
such, the said seized marijuana is admissible in evidence and, thus,
sufficient to convict him for the crime charged.16 The CA likewise
held that the rule on chain of custody was duly complied with and,
thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were not
compromised.17
Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration,18 which was,
however, denied in a Resolution19 dated September 5, 2016; hence,
this petition.
_______________
12 Id.
13 See Notice of Appeal dated October 2, 2012; Records, p. 164.
14 Rollo, pp. 40-53.
15 Id., at p. 52.
16 Id., at pp. 47-49.
17 Id., at pp. 49-52.
18 See motion for reconsideration dated November 13, 2015; CA Rollo, pp. 97-
109.
19 Rollo, pp. 55-56.

448

Miguel vs. People
The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA
correctly upheld petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is meritorious.
In criminal cases, “an appeal throws the entire case wide open for
review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though
unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial
court’s decision based on grounds other than those that the parties
raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court’s full
jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to
examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the
penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.”20
Proceeding from the foregoing, and as will be explained
hereunder, petitioner’s conviction must be set aside.
One of the arguments presented in the instant petition is that the
search and arrest made on petitioner were illegal and, thus, the
marijuana purportedly seized from him is inadmissible in
evidence.21 In this relation, it is worth noting that his arresting
officers, i.e., BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez, are mere Bantay Bayan
operatives of Makati City. Strictly speaking, they are not
government agents like the Philippine National Police (PNP) or the
National Bureau of Investigation in charge of law enforcement; but
rather, they are civilian volunteers who act as “force multipliers” to
assist the aforesaid law enforcement agencies in maintaining peace
and security
_______________
20 See People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 225608, March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA 189,
citing People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512, 521.
21 See Rollo, pp. 19-23.

449
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 449

Miguel vs. People
within their designated areas.22 Particularly, jurisprudence described

the nature of Bantay Bayan as “a group of male residents living in
[the] area organized for the purpose of keeping peace in their
community[, which is] an accredited auxiliary of the x x x PNP.”23
In the case of Dela Cruz v. People24 involving civilian port
personnel conducting security checks, the Court thoroughly
discussed that while the Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987
Constitution generally cannot be invoked against the acts of private
individuals, the same may nevertheless be applicable if such
individuals act under the color of a state-related function, viz.:
With regard to searches and seizures, the standard imposed on private

persons is different from that imposed on state agents or authorized
government authorities.
In People v. Marti, the private forwarding and shipping company,
following standard operating procedure, opened packages sent by accused
Andre Marti for shipment to Zurich, Switzerland and detected a peculiar
odor from the packages. The representative from the company found dried
marijuana leaves in the packages. He reported the matter to the National
Bureau of Investigation and brought the samples to the Narcotics Section of
the Bureau for laboratory examination. Agents from the National Bureau of
Investigation subsequently took custody of the illegal drugs. Andre Marti
was charged with and was found guilty of violating Republic Act No. 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.
22 See “Makati Police Increases Visibility in Burgos-Makati Avenue-Kalayaan

Triangle” dated April 29, 2014, <http://www.makati.gov.ph/portal/news/view.jsp?
id=3194#.WXqT5hWGPIU> (visited July 28, 2017).
23 People v. Lauga, 629 Phil. 522, 530; 615 SCRA 548, 557 (2010), citing People
v. Buendia, 432 Phil. 471, 476; 382 SCRA 714, 718 (2002).
24 G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016, 779 SCRA 34.

450

Miguel vs. People
This court held that there was no unreasonable search or seizure. The
evidence obtained against the
accused was not procured by the state acting through its police officers or
authorized government agencies. The Bill of Rights does not govern
relationships between individuals; it cannot be invoked against the acts
of private individuals:
If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant
must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of
constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or
initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and
private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of
police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law
enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by
private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government.
x x x x
The Cebu Port Authority is clothed with authority by the state to oversee
the security of persons and vehicles within its ports. While there is a
distinction between port personnel and port police officers in this case,
considering that port personnel are not necessarily law enforcers, both
should be considered agents of government under Article III of the
Constitution. The actions of port personnel during routine security
checks at ports have the color of a state-related function.
In People v. Malngan, barangay tanod and the Barangay Chairman were
deemed as law enforcement officers for purposes of applying Article III of
the Constitution. In People v. Lauga, this court held that a “ban-

451
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 451

Miguel vs. People
tay bayan,” in relation to the authority to conduct a custodial

investigation under Article III, Section 12 of the Constitution, “has the
color of a state-related function and objective insofar as the entitlement
of a suspect to his constitutional rights[.]”
Thus, with port security personnel’s functions having the color of

state-related functions and deemed agents of government, Marti is
inapplicable in the present case. x x x25 (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)

In this light, the Court is convinced that the acts of the Bantay
Bayan — or any barangay-based or other volunteer organizations in
the nature of watch groups — relating to the preservation of peace
and order in their respective areas have the color of a state-related
function. As such, they should be deemed as law enforcement
authorities for the purpose of applying the Bill of Rights under
Article III of the 1987 Constitution to them.26
Having established that the Bill of Rights may be applied to the
Bantay Bayan operatives who arrested and subsequently searched
petitioner, the Court shall now determine whether such arrest and
search were validly made.
Section 2,27 Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a
search and seizure must be carried out through
_______________
25 Id., at pp. 54-61; pp. 60-61; citations omitted.

26 See People v. Lauga, supra note 23 at pp. 529-531; p. 558.
27 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and

452

Miguel vs. People
or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the

existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and
seizure becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of said
constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable
searches and seizures, Section 3(2),28 Article III of the 1987
Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable
searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and
seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.29
One of the recognized exceptions to the need [of] a warrant
before a search may be [e]ffected is a search incidental to a lawful
arrest. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a
lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot
be reversed.30
A lawful arrest may be effected with or without a warrant. With
respect to the latter, the parameters of Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should as a general rule be
complied with:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant arrest a person:
_______________
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
28 Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:
Section 3. x x x.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
29 See Sindac v. People, G.R. No. 220732, September 6, 2016, 802 SCRA 270,
citing People v. Manago, G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016, 801 SCRA 103.
30 Id.

453
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 453

Miguel vs. People
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or
jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule
112.

The aforementioned provision identifies three (3) instances when

warrantless arrests may be lawfully effected. These are: (a) an arrest
of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) an arrest of a suspect where,
based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is
probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime
which had just been committed; and (c) an arrest of a prisoner who
has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily
confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.31
In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule 113,
two (2) elements must concur, namely: (a) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer. On the other hand,
_______________
31 Id., citing Comerciante v. People, 764 Phil. 627, 634-635; 763 SCRA 587,
595-596 (2015).

454

Miguel vs. People
Section 5(b), Rule 113 requires for its application that at the time of
the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the
arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
accused had committed it.32
In both instances, the officer’s personal knowledge of the fact
of the commission of an offense is essential. Under Section 5(a),
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the officer
himself witnesses the crime; while in Section 5(b) of the same, he
knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed.33
In this case, the prosecution claims that the BB Bahoyo and BB
Velasquez simply responded to a purported report of a man showing
off his private parts at Kaong Street which led to petitioner’s arrest.
On the other hand, petitioner maintains that he was just urinating in
front of his workplace when the Bantay Bayan operatives suddenly
approached and questioned him, and thereafter, frisked and arrested
him. BB Bahoyo’s testimony on direct and cross-examinations is
enlightening on this matter, to wit:
PROSECUTOR: x x x
x x x x
So, upon seeing Jeffrey Miguel, what did you do?

WITNESS: We approached him and we asked him what was he doing
in that place and he appears to be intoxicated, ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: After questioning him, what did you do?
WITNESS: We asked him from where he is residing and he told us that
he is from Caong Street.
_______________
32 Id.
33 Id.

455
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 455

Miguel vs. People
PROSECUTOR: What you do next?

WITNESS: Because I also live in Caong and he is not familiar to me, I
asked for his I.D., ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: Was he able to produce an I.D.?
WITNESS: He was not able to produce any I.D., ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: When he failed to produce any I.D., what did you do?
WITNESS: One of my companions asked him if he has any I.D. with him.
PROSECUTOR: Who was this companion of yours?
WITNESS: Mark Anthony Velasquez, ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: What was the response of Jeffrey to the request of Mark
Anthony Velasquez?
WITNESS: He brought out the contents of his pocket and he brought out
one pack of Fortune with one stick inside and another pack, Marlboro light
pack with one stick of cigarette and two sticks of marijuana.
x x x x
[on cross-examination]
ATTY. PUZON: When you saw certain Jeffrey, you were not familiar with
him, is that correct?
WITNESS: No, sir, I am not familiar with him.
ATTY. PUZON: And when you saw him, he was already showing his
private parts, is that correct?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
ATTY. PUZON: In your “Pinagsanib na Sinumpaang Salaysay” you stated
that when you saw Jeffrey, his back was turned to you and it seemed that he
was peeing. Do

456

Miguel vs. People
you remember saying that in your “Pinagsanib na Sinumpaang Salaysay”?

WITNESS: Yes, sir.
ATTY. PUZON: So, is it not true that when you saw him, he was already
showing his private parts?
WITNESS: He was showing his private parts, sir.
ATTY. PUZON: While his back turned to you?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
ATTY. PUZON: How could you see his private parts if his back was turned
against you?
WITNESS: He faced us, sir.
x x x x
COURT: Did you charge the accused for urinating in a public place or
for showing his private parts?
WITNESS: No, Your Honor.
ATTY. PUZON: And in fact, only a drug case was filed against Jeffrey?
WITNESS: I have no idea, sir. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)34

On the other hand, pertinent portions of petitioner’s Judicial
Affidavit35 containing his direct testimony read:
Q: Naaalala mo pa ba ang petsang 24 May 2010?

A: Opo. Iyon pa ang araw nang ako ay dakpin ng dalawang bantaybayan.
Q: Ano ang naaalala mo bago ka mahuli, kung mayroon man?
_______________
34 TSN, February 27, 2012, pp. 5-6 and 19-21.

35 Dated September 14, 2012. Records, pp. 149-151.

457
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 457

Miguel vs. People
A: Mga bandang pasado alas dose ng hating gabi ako ay umihi sa tapat ng
pinagtatrabahuhan ko ng may biglang lumapit sa akin na dalawang
bantay-bayan.
Q: Ano ang sumunod na nangvari x x x, kung mayroon man?
A: Nagtanong po sila kung saan ako nakatira at sinagot ko na nakatira

ako sa Kaong St., Brgy. San Antonio Village, Makati City at
pagkatapos ay kinapkapan nila ako.
Q: May nakuha ba sila sa iyo pakatapos kang kapkapan, kung mayroon
man?
A: Opo. Nakuha nila ang aking charger, cellphone, lighter at sigarilyong
Fortune.
Q: Ano ang sumunod na nangyari, kung mayroon man?
A: Pinosasan nila ako at dinala sa barangay.36 (Emphases and
underscoring supplied)

On cross-examination, petitioner testified, as follows:
PROSECUTOR: x x x Mr. Witness, you said that at past 12:00 in the

midnight of May 24, 2010 you were arrested by two Bantay Bayan, do you
affirm that Mr. Witness?
WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: And how did you know that they are Bantay Bayan
complement?
WITNESS: They told me that they were Bantay Bayan personnel, ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: What were you doing then, Mr. Witness?
WITNESS: Urinating in front of my place of work, ma’am.
x x x x
_______________
36 Id., at p. 149.

458

Miguel vs. People
PROSECUTOR: And you were working at that time that you were allegedly
arrested by these two Bantay Bayan complement, Mr. Witness?
WITNESS: Not anymore because I was staying in at the company, ma’am.
x x x x
PROSECUTOR: You urinated outside because you do not have a
comfort room inside, is it not a fact, Mr. Witness?
WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.
PROSECUTOR: What is this Fine Home Incorporation doing, Mr. Witness?
WITNESS: I am a caretaker at Fine Home Incorporation. I guard the steels,
ma’am.37 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

On the basis of the foregoing testimonies, the Court is inclined to

believe that at around past 12 o’clock in the early morning of May
24, 2010, petitioner went out to the street to urinate when the Bantay
Bayan operatives chanced upon him. The latter then approached and
questioned petitioner, and thereafter, went on to search his person,
which purportedly yielded the marijuana seized from him. Verily, the
prosecution’s claim that petitioner was showing off his private parts
was belied by the aforesaid testimonies. Clearly, these circumstances
do not justify the conduct of an in flagrante delicto arrest,
considering that there was no overt act constituting a crime
committed by petitioner in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer. Neither do these circumstances necessitate a “hot
pursuit” warrantless arrest as the arresting Bantay Bayan operatives
do not have any personal knowledge of facts that petitioner had just
committed an offense.
_______________
37 TSN, September 17, 2012, pp. 5-6.

459
VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 459

Miguel vs. People
More importantly, the Court simply finds highly implausible the

prosecution’s claim that a valid warrantless arrest was made on
petitioner on account of the alleged public display of his private
parts because if it was indeed the case, then the proper charge should
have been filed against him. However, records are bereft of any
showing that such charge was filed aside from the instant criminal
charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs — thereby
strengthening the view that no prior arrest was made on petitioner
which led to a search incidental thereto. As stressed earlier, there
must first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made and that
such process cannot be reversed.
All told, the Bantay Bayan operatives conducted an illegal search
on the person of petitioner. Consequently, the marijuana purportedly
seized from him on account of such search is rendered inadmissible
in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section 3(2),
Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the confiscated marijuana
is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, petitioner must
necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability.38
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
October 21, 2015 and the Resolution dated September 5, 2016 of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 35318 are hereby

REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Jeffrey
Miguel y Remegio is ACQUITTED of the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under Section
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau
of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is
being lawfully held for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
38 See People v. Manago, supra note 29, citing Comerciante v. People, supra note
31 at p. 641; p. 603.

460

Miguel vs. People
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo

and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

Petitioner Jeffrey Miguel y Remegio acquitted and ordered
immediately released.
Notes.—In People v. Montevirgen, 712 SCRA 459 (2013), the

Supreme Court (SC) reiterated the rule that a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without warrant.
(People vs. Dasigan, 750 SCRA 79 [2015])
The rule against warrantless searches and seizures admits of
exceptions, such as the search of moving vehicles. (People vs. Breis,
767 SCRA 40 [2015])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Miguel V People

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Miguel V People

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

9/2/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 833

G.R. No. 227038. July 31, 2017.*

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; In criminal cases, an

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 441

renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment

442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

— relating to the preservation of peace and order in their respective

becomes “unreasonable” within the meaning of said constitutional

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 443

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Public Attorney’s Ofﬁce for petitioner.

On May 27, 2010, an Information5 was ﬁled before the RTC

1 Rollo, pp. 13-36.

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 445

identiﬁcation card, but petitioner failed to produce one. BB

7 Records, pp. 1-2.

446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

a request for qualitative examination of the seized two (2) pieces of

an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as

8 See Rollo, pp. 42-44.

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 447

The RTC found that BB Bahoyo and BB Velasquez conducted a

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Issue Before the Court

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 449

within their designated areas.22 Particularly, jurisprudence described

With regard to searches and seizures, the standard imposed on private

22 See “Makati Police Increases Visibility in Burgos-Makati Avenue-Kalayaan

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 451

tay bayan,” in relation to the authority to conduct a custodial

Thus, with port security personnel’s functions having the color of

25 Id., at pp. 54-61; pp. 60-61; citations omitted.

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace ofﬁcer or a

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 453

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is

The aforementioned provision identiﬁes three (3) instances when

454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

So, upon seeing Jeffrey Miguel, what did you do?

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 455

PROSECUTOR: What you do next?

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

you remember saying that in your “Pinagsanib na Sinumpaang Salaysay”?

Q: Naaalala mo pa ba ang petsang 24 May 2010?

34 TSN, February 27, 2012, pp. 5-6 and 19-21.

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 457

A: Nagtanong po sila kung saan ako nakatira at sinagot ko na nakatira

PROSECUTOR: x x x Mr. Witness, you said that at past 12:00 in the

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On the basis of the foregoing testimonies, the Court is inclined to

37 TSN, September 17, 2012, pp. 5-6.

VOL. 833, JULY 31, 2017 459

More importantly, the Court simply ﬁnds highly implausible the

Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 35318 are hereby

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

Notes.—In People v. Montevirgen, 712 SCRA 459 (2013), the

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

También podría gustarte